US Attorney Seizes Poker Payment Accounts

[lwestatbus]

From NPR Today: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105263210
Players, Law Clash Over Online Poker
by Mike Pesca


Audio for this story will be available at approx. 7:00 p.m. ET

All Things Considered, June 11, 2009 · Online poker players recently took what in their parlance would be called the ultimate bad beat.

When they went to cash checks that had been issued to them from poker Web sites, the checks bounced. It turns out that the Department of Justice had seized more than $30 million of assets related to online poker.

Legal Gray Area

Online poker exists in something of a gray area of legality, though just how gray depends on what cards one is holding.

Former New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, chairman of the Poker Players Alliance, wants everyone to know that law does not make it illegal for people to play poker.

True enough, but last week the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York added a little addendum: You can play poker online, you just can't legally collect your winnings.

The seizure of assets controlled by such banks as Wells Fargo and Citibank is a new gambit in anti-gambling enforcement. Until now, the federal government relied on the Wire Act to go after offshore bookies, says Joseph Kelly, a professor of business law at Buffalo State College.

"Most lawyers would say that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting and not other types of gambling," Kelly says. "This is going to be one of the arguments that all the payment processors will be using — that this is poker, it has nothing to do with sports betting and, therefore, the Wire Act is inapplicable."

'A Terrible Law'

Three years ago, Congress did pass the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, but gambling experts such as Kelly, who is co-editor of Gaming Law Review and Economics, say that despite the tough-sounding name, the law is a bit toothless. It also doesn't seem to be coming into play in the latest seizure. More likely, the Department of Justice is relying on a few different federal statutes, like the Wire Act, but also laws designed to stop money laundering.

The Justice Department has always maintained that any form of online gambling is illegal, even if it never went after the assets of poker players themselves.

Benham Dayanim, a lawyer with the Washington firm of Paul Hastings who has represented online poker sites, says he believes the U.S. attorneys have legal backing in defining poker as gambling, and online gambling as illegal.

"Most poker aficionados and professional poker players would tell you that skill really determines the outcome over the long term," he says. "Nonetheless, if you look at the court decisions that have examined this question, they almost uniformly determine that poker is a game of chance for purposes of gambling and therefore is considered gambling."

Not that Dayanim agrees with the courts, or even agrees with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

"It's a terrible law," he says. "Absolutely terrible."

The Poker Players Alliance thinks so, too, and says a better one is needed. It wants a law that legalizes and regulates a potential source of tax revenue.

New Measure In Congress

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has authored a bill that would legalize online poker. D'Amato supports the bill even if he hasn't always seen eye-to-eye with Frank on issues that don't include one-eyed jacks.

"These kinds of prosecutorial tactics sometimes gain great headlines for those who are pushing them, but doesn't really advance the cause of justice," D'Amato says.

"To try to stop people playing poker on the Internet should be one of the last considerations of government."

Dayanim predicts that the issue will be resolved when the poker sites find a way to quietly reimburse their customers and establish more elaborate payment methods far outside the reach of U.S. authorities.

Until then, the Justice Department has pushed its chips forward and is daring anyone to call.

[Golden Holden]

I think this should really serve as a wake up call to American poker players.

Barney Frank's bill may be voted on in the house by August. Its seriously time to stand up and call your representatives imo.

[Jonniedough]

agreed! Get on the horn spread the word, email and write!!

The checks that bounced that came from poker players accounts were refunded back to the players via the site. FT and PS were named in this article. "David" got his money back plus 10% for the hassle.

"In light of recent events involving the freezing of certain accounts, Full Tilt Poker would like to assure all players that their funds remain safe and secure," spokeswoman Michelle Clayborn said in a statement.

as for withdraws that may be a different story

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=7808131&page=1

[Muck]

Did they actually bounce or were the payments just stopped? Because I’d be annoyed if I was one of these people and it counted against my credit rating.

[Jonniedough]

Did they actually bounce or were the payments just stopped? Because I’d be annoyed if I was one of these people and it counted against my credit rating.

When he went to cash the check from Account Services Wednesday, it bounced, he said.

[clarky]

I guess, US attorneys also wants a share of the gambling revenues here, if the poker bill was up and with tax, they also gonna dig up for more money! Good thing i was not able to deposit into PS. each and every day i am doing something, it would come up and i would tell myself i'll do it later,thank god later never came. Whew!

[lwestatbus]

Well, its deja vu all over again.

[BeerWench13]

This is so irritating. I guess I'll have to stick with my other hobbies: brewing beer, betting the horses (which is legal? HUh?), fishing and boating. I'm just glad that they didn't do this until recently. It would've been a long, cold, boring winter.

On a side note, I brewed beer this weekend. I even started a brew blog. Should be interesting to see if anyone actually reads it. If you're interested, have a read. http://beerwenchbrewblog.blogspot.com/

[lwestatbus]

On a side note, I brewed beer this weekend. I even started a brew blog. Should be interesting to see if anyone actually reads it. If you're interested, have a read. http://beerwenchbrewblog.blogspot.com/

If you adopt me you can go up to 1,500 gallons.

[BeerWench13]

I'd have to brew almost every day to brew 1500 gallons in a year. Besides, I already have an "adoptee" of sorts right now and I don't think I could handle another man around the house all the time.